6 attack constitutes an “insurrection” under the law or simply a less legally fraught incident such as a riot.īut McConnell also worries about the political precedent if Trump is ultimately removed from any state ballot. McConnell questions whether the provision even applies to the presidency because it is not one of the offices specifically listed in the 14th Amendment - which instead refers to “elector of president and vice president.” He also said it’s unclear whether the Jan. But Michael McConnell, a conservative law professor at Stanford University who is not a Trump supporter, said the case is no slam dunk. The eventual, bigger court challenges are expected to draw greater legal fire power. On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot. Earlier in the day, a conservative personality had falsely claimed the state was about to strike Trump from the ballot.
Indeed, the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office was flooded with messages about the issue on Monday, said Anna Sventek, a spokeswoman.
“And I think what’s happening is there’s really been a backlash against it,” Trump told the conservative channel Newsmax. Trump argues that any effort to prevent him from appearing on a state’s ballot amounts to “election interference” - the same way he is characterizing the criminal charges filed against him in New York and Atlanta and by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., and Florida. “As Georgia’s Secretary of State, I have been clear that voters are smart and deserve the right to decide elections,” he said in an emailed statement. In a radio interview earlier this week, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said “there are valid legal arguments being made” for keeping Trump off the ballot and that it’s something she is discussing with other secretaries of state, including those in presidential battlegrounds.īrad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia who withstood pressure from Trump when he sought to overturn the 2020 results in the state, suggested the issue should be up to voters. Other secretaries of state are warily navigating the legal minefield. If Trump appears on the Arizona ballot, those who believe he’s not qualified can still sue in federal court to remove him. Fontes, a Democrat, called the ruling “dead, flat wrong” in an interview with the Republic but said he would abide by it. The complex legal issues were highlighted on Wednesday when the Arizona Republic reported that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said his hands are tied because of a ruling by that state’s high court that only Congress can disqualify someone on Arizona’s presidential ballot. The judge overseeing Greene’s case ruled in her favor, while Cawthorn’s case became moot after he was defeated in his primary. “The framers of the 14th Amendment learned the bloody lesson that, once an oath-breaking insurrectionist engages in insurrection, they can’t be trusted to return to power,” Fein said.Īhead of the 2022 midterms, the group sued to remove US Representative Marjorie Taylor-Greene and then-Representative Madison Cawthorn, both Republicans, from the ballot over their support for the Jan. The group’s legal director, Ron Fein, noted that after years of silence, officials are beginning to discuss the matter.
#ANNA METRO EXODUS FREE#
In 2021, the nonprofit Free Speech For People sent letters to the top election official in all 50 states requesting Trump’s removal if he were to run again for the presidency.
The issue came up during last week’s Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee, when former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson warned that “this is something that could disqualify him under our rules and under the Constitution.” “Taking Section Three seriously means excluding from present or future office those who sought to subvert lawful government authority under the Constitution in the aftermath of the 2020 election,” they write. In their article, scheduled to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Baude and Paulsen said they believe the meaning is clear. That section bars anyone from Congress, the military, and federal and state offices if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution and “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
0 kommentar(er)
